Bible Quotation For Today/Nathanael
replied, ‘Rabbi, you are the Son of God!
John 01/47-51: "When Jesus saw Nathanael coming towards him, he said of him,
‘Here is truly an Israelite in whom there is no deceit!’ Nathanael asked him,
‘Where did you come to know me?’ Jesus answered, ‘I saw you under the fig tree
before Philip called you. ’Nathanael replied, ‘Rabbi, you are the Son of God!
You are the King of Israel!’Jesus answered, ‘Do you believe because I told you
that I saw you under the fig tree? You will see greater things than these.’And
he said to him, ‘Very truly, I tell you, you will see heaven opened and the
angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.’"

Bible Quotation For Today/Michael
and his angels fought against the dragon
Book of Revelation 12/07-12: "And war broke out in heaven; Michael and his
angels fought against the dragon. The dragon and his angels fought back, but
they were defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. The
great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and
Satan, the deceiver of the whole world he was thrown down to the earth, and his
angels were thrown down with him. Then I heard a loud voice in heaven,
proclaiming, ‘Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our
God and the authority of his Messiah, for the accuser of our comrades has been
thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God. But they have
conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for
they did not cling to life even in the face of death. Rejoice then, you heavens
and those who dwell in them! But woe to the earth and the sea, for the devil has
come down to you with great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!’"

Siniora to STL:
Hariri crime scene tampered withThe Daily Star/Mar. 25, 2015
/BEIRUT: Former Prime Minister Fouad Siniora accused Lebanese and Syrian
security services Wednesday of tampering with the crime scene of Former Prime
Minister Rafik Hariri’s assassination. "The [Lebanese-Syrian] security apparatus
manipulated the sight of the blast on the day Prime Minister Hariri was
assassinated," Siniora said during his third day of testimony before the Special
Tribunal for Lebanon. He also said that the security apparatus "bullied"
Lebanese politicians and the judiciary and "violated the dignities and freedoms"
of Lebanese citizens. Siniora began offering testimony to the Hague-based court
Monday, detailing a strained relationship between former premier Rafik Hariri
and Syria. In his second day of testimony before the STL Tuesday, Siniora told
the court that Hariri had confided to him that he had uncovered multiple
assassination plots against him orchestrated by Hezbollah.

Saniora
before STL: Lebanese-Syrian Security System Meddled in Judiciary, Govt. Work
Naharnet/25.03.15/Head of the Mustaqbal bloc MP Fouad Saniora resumed on
Wednesday his testimony at the Special Tribunal for Lebanon by being
cross-examined by the Defense that focused on the role the Syrian and Lebanese
security systems played in Lebanon during the 1990s and up until the
assassination of former Premier Rafik Hariri in 2005. Saniora said: “The
security system meddled in the judiciary and hindered the work of the Lebanese
government institutions.” He explained that Syrian forces first entered Lebanon
to restore order in the country during the 1975-90 civil war. The violations
committed by Syria in Lebanon soon followed, he added.
“Ties between two neighboring countries should be based on respecting the
independence, freedom, and sovereignty of each side,” stressed Saniora. “The
Lebanese-Syrian security system was comprised of a number of individuals and
tools that enjoyed close ties with the Syrian security apparatus,” he continued.
“Security agencies are essential for any country,” he added, but the
Lebanese-Syrian system abused its power and “hindered the path of justice by
failing to tackle past assassinations in Lebanon,” he remarked. It also tampered
with the Hariri crime scene, which was confirmed by various investigation teams,
noted head of the Mustaqbal bloc. The Lebanese-Syrian security system also began
to target those close to Hariri, Saniora recalled. It even went so far as to
fabricate accusations against individuals in order to imprison them, which it
did, he explained. “Later, the judiciary ordered their release because they were
innocent all along,” Saniora said, while adding that there are dozens of
examples of the violations committed by the security system at the time.
Furthermore, the Defense touched on the issue of the United Nations Security
Council resolution 1559 and whether Hariri played a role in it. Saniora
declared: “Neither Hariri nor his team were part of devising the resolution.”
Issued in September 2004, resolution 1559 calls upon all foreign forces to
withdraw from Lebanon and for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and
non-Lebanese militias. On Tuesday, the MP revealed that Hariri had confided to
him that he had discovered several assassination attempts by Hizbullah against
him. He told prosecutors that Hariri had spoken to him of his concerns about his
personal security around the end of 2003 or the beginning of 2004. Five
Hizbullah members have been charged with plotting Hariri's February 14, 2005
assassination in a massive explosion at the Beirut seafront, but have not been
arrested. Their trial in absentia began in January 2014 and is ongoing.
Hizbullah denies involvement in the murder and the group's leader, Sayyed Hassan
Nasrallah, has denounced the court as a conspiracy by his archenemies — the U.S.
and Israel.

Rai: Bishops should back citizens in tough times
The Daily Star/Mar. 25, 2015 /BEIRUT: Maronite Patriarch Beshara Rai called
Wednesday on Maronite bishops to assume their responsibilities towards Lebanese
citizens in light of the difficult situation in Lebanon. In a sermon delivered
on the occasion of the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary, the patriarch said that
it was the “mission” of Maronite bishops to help Lebanese citizens “surpass the
challenges facing Lebanon.”The church will announce principles, that are based
on human dignity, unity, cooperation, justice and peace, to govern the country's
social, political and economic processes, he added. Rai expressed his
disappointment over the ten month-long presidential vacuum, saying that he had
expected a president to be elected one year ago. Lebanon has been without a
president since Michel Sleiman left office last May. Lawmakers have botched
several attempts to elect a successor. The March 8 coalition has boycotted
election sessions due to disagreements with March 14 over a consensus candidate.

Hariri in
Ankara for Talks with Erdogan
Naharnet/Al-Mustaqbal movement leader ex-PM Saad Hariri was in Ankara on
Wednesday for talks with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, his press
office said. The terse statement said Hariri arrived in Ankara on Wednesday
morning along with his adviser Nader Hariri. During the visit, the former
premier will meet with Erdogan, the statement added without giving further
details. But their talks are likely to focus on the crises gripping the region,
mainly the war in neighboring Syria and its repercussions on Lebanon. Both
Turkey and the March 14 coalition, the grouping led by Hariri, are staunch
critics of Syrian President Bashar Assad and have called on him to step down.
Hariri, who resides in Riyadh and Paris, last visited Beirut in February.

Amin
Gemayel Slams Iran's Role, Says Aoun's 'Illogical' Presidential Stance Should
Change
Naharnet/Kataeb Party leader Amin Gemayel blamed Iran on the spread of crises in
the region and criticized Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun over his
“illogical” stance from the presidential deadlock. “The (region's) crises began
since Iran started to spread its influence in Iraq, Syria and in Lebanon through
Hizbullah,” Gemayel told pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat in an interview
published on Wednesday. “But for sure the Islamic State group is not an innocent
phenomenon,” said the former president. Gemayel described the repercussions of
Syria's civil war on Lebanon as “destructive.”“Lebanon does not embrace takfiri
extremist movements … so the effect (of the Syrian war) has not been huge on the
Lebanese social fabric,” he said.In the interview, Gemayel praised Saudi Arabia
as a “loyal friend” of Lebanon. He said Riyadh's support has helped the country
confront its ordeals. Saudi Arabia and France signed an agreement in November
last year for Paris to provide the Lebanese military with $3 billion worth of
weapons paid for by Riyadh.
The first shipment of French weapons is expected to arrive next month. In August
2014, Saudi Arabia pledged a further $1 billion to help the Lebanese army
confront the escalating violence linked to the Syrian conflict. Gemayel said
Riyadh's assistance would help the army make a “leap forward.”Asked about the
presidential crisis, Gemayel denied that inter-Maronite differences have
weakened the country's top Christian post. “I don't agree with some politicians
who blame Christians” for the deadlock, he said.
“Since Lebanon's independence there has been a conflict among Maronites,”
Gemayel said. “Today, we are facing the same situation with the March 8 and 14
alliances.” “Hadn't Hizbullah backed Aoun, he wouldn't have been able to cause
lack of quorum,” he added.
Baabda Palace has been vacant since President Michel Suleiman's term ended in
May last year. Aoun's Change and Reform bloc, Hizbullah and other MPs from the
March 8 coalition have been boycotting the parliamentary sessions aimed at
electing a new president.
“Aoun and Hizbullah have mutual interests,” he said. “So the paralysis of the
presidential polls is not a Christian responsibility. It is a political
situation that was caused by all confesssions.” Asked how the deadlock should be
resolved, Gemayel told the newspaper that “Aoun should be persuaded that his
stance is illogical.”He advised the FPM chief to place the interest of the
nation and its constitutional institutions before any other interest.

Lebanon's
Army Hefty Catch to Aid Crackdown on Terror Networks
Naharnet /Omar and Bilal Miqati, two top fugitives who were detained on Tuesday
at an army checkpoint in the northeastern border town of Arsal, reportedly could
reveal important information during investigations that would lead to the arrest
of their accomplices.
According to As Safir newspaper published on Wednesday, the two men are expected
to reveal crucial data that would lead to busting terror networks and dormant
cells in Lebanon and the arrest their members, who were described as highly
dangerous.
The newspaper said that Omar, 24, and his cousin Bilal, 23, were detained while
moving from Arsal to to the Bekaa town of al-Labweh near an army checkpoint in
the town of Hrabta.
The army intelligence reportedly spotted the movement of the two men between the
Syrian al-Qalamoun area and Arsal. They were allegedly visiting prominent
figures in Arsal, including a well-known religious figure.
Two fake Syrian identities were seized in the possession of the two, who were
directly moved to the intelligence branch headquarters in Yarze.
As Safir said that a Syrian national was immediately arrested after the two
Miqatis began testifying to investigators.
The newspaper said that the two militants, in cooperation with Fayez Othman, who
has been detained recently, and others had formed an armed group and were
charged with several dangerous offenses.
In October, State Commissioner to the Military Court Judge Saqr Saqr charged
Ahmed Salim Miqati, the father of Omar, the two cousins, Othman and 14 others
with "belonging to a terrorist group with the aim of carrying out terror acts."
The charges also included "the formation of armed groups, recruiting
individuals, training on the use of arms and explosives, and plotting to occupy
the Dinniyeh region villages of Asoun, Bakhoun, Bqaa Safrine and Sir al-Dinniyeh
with the aim of creating an IS emirate."
Security sources told As Safir that Omar and Bilal have been moving in Arsal,
the northern city of Tripoli and took part in battles in Syria along fighters
from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
According to al-Joumhouria newspaper the two men pledged allegiance to the IS a
year ago.
A high-ranking military official, who refused to be identified, said in comments
to al-Joumhouria newspaper that the “unique operation carried out by the army
(on Tuesday) confirms its readiness,” stressing that the hefty catch will lead
to clamping down on terror cells.
The official said that the army intelligence carried out the arrest with utmost
accuracy to avoid the spilling of any blood
Omar and Bilal had confessed to slaughtering three people, including the
beheading of army sergeant Ali al-Sayyed, who was taken captive after Islamist
gunmen overran Arsal.
Al-Akhbar reported that Bilal, who is also known as the Lebanese Abou Omar and
Abou Omar al-Trabulsi, was the one who beheaded al-Sayyed, adding that he sent
pictures via WhatsApp to his friend in the north to boast about it.
Jihadi sources confirmed to the daily the matter, pointing out that the two men
decided to leave al-Qalamoun and head back to Lebanon, fearing an assassination
bid against them after division provoked liquidation among the members of IS in
the area.
The family of sergeant al-Sayyed expressed relief in comments to As Safir
newspaper over the arrest of the two Miqatis, demanding their public execution.
The daily said that the operation compelled the army to boost its measures to
avert any possible retaliation by ISIL on the arrest of the two men.

Qassem Soleimani and building Iranian character
Wednesday, 25 March 2015
Abdulrahman al-Rashed/Al Arabiya
It is unusual for the Iranian regime to publicize its military and security
leaders despite the many wars it has been involved in during the last three
decades. This is what makes General Qassim Soleimani, commander of the Quds
Force of the Iranian revolutionary Guards, an interesting case. He has received
unusual media exposure beyond what’s allowed in the Iranian state-run media and
in the Arab media outlets affiliated with Tehran.
It’s obvious that the importance of the general stretches beyond his military
command position as he leads Iran’s foreign political and military wars.
Soleimani’s publicity may be a natural result of Iran’s increasing dependency on
its own military power after it had mainly depended on its local proxies, like
Hezbollah, the Hamas movement and Iraqi Shiite militias. Soleimani was tasked
with a prominent role in Syria and the statement that “if it hadn’t been for
Iranian help, the Syrian regime would have collapsed” is no exaggeration.
The Americans say that it’s “he (Soleimani) who’s leading the war in Syria.” As
a matter of fact, the regime of Bashar al-Assad tottered for two years and
Syrian regime forces were besieged everywhere until they were revived when the
Iranians assumed many leadership tasks and brought in, funded and managed tens
of thousands of Lebanese Hezbollah fighters, Iraqi Asaa’ib Ahl Al-Haq militants
and Shiite Afghans.
The Syrian scenario, which Soleimani is leading, is being repeated in Iraq. Hadi
al-Amiri, head of the Iraqi Badr organization, was quoted as saying that “if it
hadn’t been for Iran’s help and for Soleimani’s presence in Iraq, the government
of Haidar al-Abadi would have been outside Iraq now.” There is news that General
Soleimani is present with his forces, in a lesser number, in Yemen alongside the
Houthi rebels.
Fierce offensive policy
Speaking about Soleimani, David Petraeus, former commander of U.S. troops in
Iraq, recently said that in the spring of 2008, Suleimani made it clear to him
that he was in charge of Iran’s policy regarding Iraq.
It’s obvious that the importance of the general stretches beyond his military
command position
Abdulrahman al-Rashed
This explains Iran’s policy and that it depends on General Soleimani managing
conflict zones, like Iraq, Syria and Yemen. And it depends also on him managing
political activities, like supporting certain parties over others and achieving
results and political decisions which serve the interests of Iran and of those
allied with it.
During the past year, it has become clear that the Iranian leadership adopts a
fierce offensive policy which could extend beyond its current borders. It’s
publicizing its military and security leaderships and presenting them as heroes
to the Iranian people and to those allied with Iran. It’s doing so by
embellishing a military commander like Soleimani.
This style is often used in big wars. Among the stars of World War II are
generals whose importance was equal to political leaders. Some examples were
British general Montgomery, German general Rommel and American general Patton.
General Soleimani has certainly become the most famous Iranian figure in the
arena of regional wars.
Two years ago, the New Yorker published a report on him as the figure managing
Iran’s foreign wars. Sanctions against Soleimani by the U.S. Department of
Treasury did not prevent his media appearances, confirming that the Iranian
policy has become clearer than before when prominent figures were not allowed to
be part of foreign political and military battles.
Our region has become full of war generals who decide the region’s fate more
than politicians do especially as fronts multiply and circumstances complicate.
The frequent question is: how will the war end?
I’ll quote what General Petraeus said: “Yes, ‘Hajji Qassem,’ our old friend. I
have several thoughts when I see the pictures of him… What I will say is that he
is very capable and resourceful individual, a worthy adversary. He has played
his hand well. But this is a long game, so let’s see how events transpire.”

Rouhani feels the pressure, too
By Mehdi Khalaji/Washington Institute
President Obama is not the only leader who feels he must deliver as the March 31
deadline nears to reach a framework for a nuclear agreement. Iran’s president,
Hassan Rouhani, has staked his political present and future on his ability to
conclude a deal.
So far, the great majority of the Iranian people are staying with him, beckoned
by the promise of lifted sanctions and better economic times—not to mention
immunity from potential U.S. or Israeli military strikes.
Yet in Iran, daily living conditions have hardly been ameliorated by the partial
relief in sanctions that accompanied the November 2013 interim agreement known
as the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA). Businesses still have strictly limited
access to the international banking system; unemployment, especially among
university graduates, remains a national problem; the housing market is
stagnant; and the government is struggling to pay its customary cash subsidies
to citizens.
The patience demonstrated by Iranians with the nuclear talks has a different
dimension: the relegating of human rights issues and democracy-related
priorities to the backburner. According to Ahmad Shaheed, the UN Special
Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran,
“The human rights situation in the country has deteriorated since Hassan Rouhani
became president in 2013.” Number of executions has been significantly increased
in last two years. Zahra Rahnavard, Mir Hossein Moussavi and Mehdi Karrobi,
leaders of Green Movement are still under house arrest.
In acknowledging such unsettling trends, Rouhani and his fellow reformists have
argued that if a nuclear deal comes first, other reforms will follow, paving the
way for a more open and prosperous Iran. Those supportive of Rouhani think
likewise that a nuclear deal, aided by lifted sanctions, could sideline the
country’s hardliners and effectively safeguard Rouhani’s political survival for
perhaps the next six years. The Rouhani camp’s eagerness to promise “full”
sanctions relief, however, an impossible outcome, may ultimately haunt him.
Just as Obama is facing strong resistance from certain domestic blocs, Rouhani
and his fellow negotiators are contending with powerful conservative opponents.
On March 14, Hossein Shariatmadari, an appointee of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who
edits the hardline newspaper Kayhan, penned an op-ed titled “A Nuclear Agreement
Is Impossible” in which he argues that expecting sanctions relief is unrealistic
given that sanctions are the “most effective weapon in U.S. hands, which it
would not put down.” He continues that the “realistic view shows that the
nuclear challenge does not have an end, and reaching a deal in which Iran’s
right is recognized is impossible.” In place of the current high-level talks, he
calls for lower-level Iranian directors and experts to negotiate with the
P5+1—as the five members of the UN Security Council and Germany are known—and
for Iran to work harder internally to devise alternative solutions to ease the
effect of sanctions.
Such statements from a Khamenei acolyte—indeed someone who often voices the
Supreme Leader’s direct views to lend him personal immunity—beg some sort of
explanation. Is the Supreme Leader, who has overtly if tepidly supported the
talks, walking back his initial commitment? Or does the rhetoric indicate an
early attempt to deflect blame should the talks falter?
Shariatmadari, it must be noted, does not call for the talks to end, implicitly
recognizing that an unsuccessful result could damage hardliners as well as
reformists. “Continuing negotiations is necessary,” he writes, “because first it
would prove that the U.S. is not trustworthy and, second, Iranian nuclear
negotiators have the upper hand in terms of legal and technical arguments which
are the basis for the negotiations.” No Iranian involved in the talks wants to
be blamed for their failure, which is why allowing them to continue
indefinitely, if fruitlessly, is not always seen as the worst alternative.
Assuming the Supreme Leader and his allies aren’t prepared to actually block a
nuclear deal, most Iranian people would be profoundly relieved by this outcome.
But even for Rouhani, challenges would remain. Whatever the specific terms,
hardliners would continue to pound the president over the deal’s unfavorable
components. They would overstate the concessions required of the Islamic
Republic and downplay the benefits.
Rouhani’s political fate would, of course, be far grimmer in the event no deal
is reached. Such an end would be seen as vindicating hardliner doubts over the
point of the nuclear talks, and would give fodder for use against reformists
entering the 2016 vote for parliament and the Assembly of Experts, a clerical
body that reports to the Supreme Leader.
For the Iranian people, failed negotiations would be a great disappointment, and
some would certainly look beyond Rouhani when casting blame. There would be the
usual suspects, such as the Israelis and the Americans. The Supreme Leader has
already assailed the West for its lack of seriousness and sincerity. But
persistent sanctions would inevitably stir anger toward the clerical
establishment, including Khamenei. A situation characterized by economic
stricture and military insecurity would make Iran a chronically unpleasant place
to live.
This is why Khamenei also wants a deal within the existing framework and
timetable; albeit a deal with terms the P5+1 may be unable to offer. And while
Rouhani may shoulder the more immediate political consequences of a failure,
Khamenei and his cadres would eventually feel rising dissent in the longer term
from an increasingly desperate polity.
For Obama, the imperative to achieve an agreement may be pressing, but the talks
are safely ensconced in the U.S. foreign policy sleeve. For Rouhani as well as
his adversaries, the talks aren’t only about foreign policy, but about their
political survival, their relationship to their constituents, and the basic
health of their country.
**Khalaji is a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy
and scholar on Islam.

Iran-led forces are worsted in Tikrit in Tehran’s first
battlefield encounter with ISIS
DEBKAfile Special Report March 25, 2015
The offensive launched by a mixed force of the Iraqi army (10,000 troops) and
Iranian-led Shiite militias (20,000) to capture Tikrit from the Islamic State
has been thrown back, upsetting rosy US-led coalition predictions.
The fighting for this important Sunni city died down – not because the Iraqi
troops and their assorted Iraqi, Afghan and Pakistan Shiite allies had thrown in
the sponge, but because the casualties inflicted on them by the Islamic State
had become too heavy to bear and carry on fighting. This momentous debacle was
first revealed in DEBKA Weekly 656 of March 20.
Official figures have still not been released by Baghdad or the Iranian command
staff headed by Al Qods Brigades chief, the legendary Gen. Qassem Soleimani. But
the losses were crippling – some sources estimating them at roughly one tenth of
the mixed force. Entire units were disabled and scattered. Some Iraqi army
contingents fled the battlefield in disarray without a word to their officers –
repeating their earlier performance last June when ISIS launched its first
offensive to seize territory in Iraq.
Iraqi and Iranian officers have since fallen to quarrelling over responsibility
for the shambles, especially targeting the most prominent figure, Gen. Hadi Al-Amiri,
commander of the Shiite Badr Brigade.
The upshot of the much-heralded battle of Tikrit is acutely embarrassing for the
Obama administration, whose plan of campaign against the Islamic State hinged on
a swift victory in Tikrit as the prelude to larger operations for turning the
tide of war against the jihadis. The setback occurred shortly after Gen. Martin
Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint US Chiefs of Staff assured a Senate hearing in
Washington, after visiting Iraq: “There is no doubt that Iraqi forces will drive
Islamic State militants out of Tikrit.”
In reality ISIS had by then driven the Iraqis and pro-Iranian forces out of the
city and fighting had not resumed.
This episode holds important lessons for the future of the war on ISIS:
1. The Islamic State proved in Tikrit to be not just powerful and tenacious, but
also a lot more sophisticated than believed and proficient in the use of
electronic and cyber tools of war.
2. Its command and control functioned efficiently and proved able to respond
rapidly to constantly changing situations on the battlefield. When the forces
needed to withdraw, they did so in orderly and tactically correct fashion.
3. Equally orderly and well-organized were their logistics, which kept vehicles,
ammo and food moving as needed and the dead and injured removed. Attempts in the
West to present the organization as cracking up internally proved unfounded.
ISIS detached fighting strength from northern and western Iraq and moved it to
Tikrit, while also keeping its supply lines from Syria to Iraq open under US air
strikes.
4. And while holding the line in Tikrit, the ISIS command, consisting mainly of
ex-officers of Saddam Hussein’s army and young Westerners - including Americans,
Brits, Australians and Canadians with military backgrounds - managed to open up
new battlefronts in central and northern Iraq.
5. The Iraqi army’s showing was poor in contrast. Iraqi battalions trained by US
instructors were reported in Western media to be treating the battle to retake
Tikrit from ISIS as a testing ground, in preparation for the campaign to recover
Iraq’s second large city, Mosul. These battalions proved far from ready - even
for their initial ordeal - and hardly likely to come up to scratch soon for any
major mission.
6. Tikrit was a major humiliation for the much-acclaimed Iranian Gen. Soleimani,
who took personal command of the offensive.
7. Iran’s military inadequacies in battle stood out starkly against the Islamic
State’s capabilities. To make headway in the Iraq war arena, Tehran would need
to field professional soldiers or regular Revolutionary Guards units – not just
irregular Shiite militias.
8. This unforeseen dilemma prompted intense discussions among top policy-makers
and military chiefs in Tehran to determine whether or not to throw the Iranian
air force into Iraq for a serious attempt to dislodge Islamic State forces from
Tikrit.
9. Nothing less than direct intervention by Iranian fighter-bomber jets and
assault helicopter cover for the Iraqi troops and pro-Iranian militiamen can be
expected to have much effect – especially since the jihadis have barricaded
themselves inside Saddam Hussein’s massive palace compound of Maqar el-Tharthar
on the lake of that name. This is one of the most heavily fortified sites in the
Middle East, containing a warren of atomic-bomb-proof bunkers and wide
subterranean tunnels and passages. To breach it would call for heavy aerial
bombardment, a task which the Iranians are mostly likely to leave to the US Air
Force.
10. In the battle of Tikrit, the bottom fell out of the Obama administration’s
strategy of limiting to intelligence-gathering and air strikes the US and
coalition contribution to the war on ISIS, and leaving ground combat to local
forces reinforced by Shiite militias under Iranian command.
The rooting out of the Islamic State from the one-third of Iraq and Syria which
the caliphate has grabbed would call for around 100,000 well-trained Western
ground troops to be injected into the war.

France Declares War on Radical Islam
by Soeren Kern/Gatestone Institute.org
March 25, 2015
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5440/france-radical-islam
The moves are part of a raft of new anti-terrorism measures aimed at preventing
French citizens or residents from joining jihadist groups abroad. The new powers
are controversial because they can be implemented without judicial approval.
"These are legal tools, but not tools of exception, nor of generalized
surveillance of citizens. There cannot be a lawless zone in the digital space.
Often we cannot predict the threat, the services must have the power to react
quickly." — Manuel Valls, Prime Minister of France.
"When you do a projection for the months to come, there could be 5,000
[Europeans waging jihad in Iraq and Syria] before summer and 10,000 before the
end of the year. Do you realize the threat that this represents?" — Manuel Valls,
Prime Minister of France.
The French government has cut the social welfare benefits of nearly 300
jihadists who have left France to join the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Amid
a rapidly expanding jihadist threat, it has also started confiscating passports,
imposing travel bans and blocking access to jihadist websites.
The moves are part of a raft of new anti-terrorism measures aimed at preventing
French citizens or residents from joining jihadist groups abroad, and at slowing
the spread of radical Islam at home. Muslim groups are criticizing the flurry of
activity as "Islamophobia."
On March 17, Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve revealed that the government
has stopped paying welfare benefits to 290 French jihadists fighting with the
Islamic State. He said that the agencies responsible for distributing welfare
payments were being notified as soon as it was confirmed that a French citizen
had left the country to fight abroad.
At least 1,200 French nationals or residents are believed to have joined the
Islamic State, but Cazeneuve did not say whether any of those were receiving
benefits. "We should not make a controversy out of this subject or allow people
to think that no action has been taken," he said. "We are taking this seriously
and will continue to do so."
The debate over benefits payments to jihadists erupted in November 2014, when
Eric Ciotti, the president of Alpes-Maritimes, a department in southeastern
France, suspended the payment of a welfare benefit known as the RSA to a French
jihadist fighting in Syria. "I cannot conceive that public money goes into the
pockets of someone who harbors terrorist designs against our nation, against its
vital interests and against democracy, and that money is being used to fund
jihad," Ciotti said at the time.
Meanwhile, for the first time ever, French authorities on February 23
confiscated the passports and identity cards of six French citizens who were
allegedly planning to travel to Syria to join the Islamic State. The government
said it might seize the passports of at least 40 other French citizens.
On March 16, the Interior Ministry also blocked five Islamist websites that, it
said, were promoting terrorism. The sites included one belonging to al-Hayat
Media Center, the propaganda wing of the Islamic State.
The actions were carried out in accordance with new rules that grant French
authorities the power to block websites that "glorify terrorism," and to impose
entry and exit bans on individuals "whenever there are serious reasons to
believe that they are planning to travel abroad... to take part in terrorist
activities, war crimes or crimes against humanity." The new powers have been
controversial because they can be implemented without judicial approval.
Cazeneuve said that the websites were blocked to prevent people from "taking up
arms" on the Internet. "I make a distinction between freedom of expression and
the spread of messages that serve to glorify terrorism," he said. "These hate
messages are a crime," he added. Cazeneuve said his ministry was targeting
"dozens" of other jihadist websites.
But the Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe, Nils Muižnieks,
criticized the move because it was carried out without judicial oversight.
"Limiting human rights to fight against terrorism is a serious mistake and an
inefficient measure that can even help the terrorists' cause," he said.
Muižnieks added that he was "worried" about the "exclusively security-driven
approach" shaping French counter-terrorism legislation, and warned that if
adopted, "this legislation could have the effect of killing freedom and creating
a dangerous social climate in which all individuals are considered potential
suspects."
Muižnieks was referring to a new bill that was unveiled by Prime Minister Manuel
Valls on March 19, which would allow intelligence services to monitor and
collect the email and telephone communications of anyone suspected of being a
terrorist. The bill will be debated in the French parliament in April and is
expected to be approved in July.
Among other features, the new law would force Internet service providers and
telephone companies to allow intelligence services to record metadata, which
could be stored for up to five years and would be analyzed for potentially
suspicious behavior. If intelligence agents detect anything suspicious, they
could ask an independent nine-person panel for permission to conduct more
intense surveillance.
Amnesty International said the law would pave the way for intrusive surveillance
practices with no judicial pre-authorization. In a statement, the group said:
"The surveillance practices envisaged in the draft legislation would give the
French authorities extremely broad surveillance powers running against
fundamental principles of proportionality and legality, which ought to govern
all restrictions on the right to privacy and free speech."
Valls defended the bill. "These are legal tools, but not tools of exception, nor
of generalized surveillance of citizens," he said at a press conference. "There
will not be a French Patriot Act," he said, referring to American legislation
bearing the same name. "There cannot be a lawless zone in the digital space.
Often we cannot predict the threat, the services must have the power to react
quickly."
The majority of French citizens seem to agree. An Ipsos survey for Radio Europe
1 and the French daily Le Monde on January 28 showed that 71% of people were in
favor of general surveillance without the need to get a warrant from a judge.
Other counter-terrorism initiatives include:
On March 3, Valls announced that the state would double the number of university
courses on Islam in an effort to stop foreign governments from financing and
influencing the training of French imams. Valls said that he wanted more imams
and prison chaplains who have been trained abroad to "undergo more training in
France, to speak French fluently and to understand the concept of secularism."
There are currently six universities in France offering courses in Islamic
studies and theology. Valls said he wanted to double that number to 12 and that
the courses would be free.
On February 25, Cazeneuve unveiled a plan to "reform" the Muslim faith in order
to bring it into line with the "values of the French Republic." This would be
done by means of a new "Islamic Foundation" devoted to conducting "revitalizing
research" into a form of Islam that "carries the message of peace, tolerance and
respect." Among other measures, the government would create a new forum to:
promote dialogue with the Muslim community; improve the training of Muslim
preachers; combat radicalization in French prisons; and regulate Muslim schools.
On January 21, Valls announced a 736 million euro ($835 million) program to
augment its anti-terrorism defenses. He said the government would hire and train
2,680 new anti-terrorist judges, security agents, police officers, electronic
eavesdroppers and analysts over the next three years. The government will also
spend 480 million euros on new weapons and protective gear for police. The
initiative includes an enhanced online presence based on a new government
website called "Stop Djihadisme."
"They tell you: Sacrifice yourself with us, you will defend a just cause." The
French government's anti-jihadist website, called "Stop Djihadisme," features
videos debunking jihadist recruitment propaganda.
Valls recently warned that as many as 10,000 Europeans could be waging jihad in
Iraq and Syria by the end of 2015. "There are 3,000 Europeans in Iraq and Syria
today," he said. "When you do a projection for the months to come, there could
be 5,000 before summer and 10,000 before the end of the year. Do you realize the
threat that this represents?"
**Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He
is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de
Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on
Twitter.

Saudis preparing to face Iran's allies in Yemen
Roi Kais/Ynetnews
Published: 03.25.15/Israel Opinion
Analysis: After Iranian-backed rebels take over Saudi Arabia's backyard, Riyadh
is considering sending military forces to Yemen to indirectly confront its great
Shiite rival.
Signs of a Saudi-led military intervention in Yemen are growing. Saudi Foreign
Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said in a clear voice during a press conference
with his British counterpart on Monday that if the anarchy in Yemen is not
solved peacefully, the Gulf states will take the "necessary measures" to protect
the region from the "aggression" of the Houthis and their allies – the
Iranian-backed forces of former Yemeni president Ali Abdullah Saleh.
On Tuesday night it was reported that the Saudis were increasing their threat
and moving forces to the border with Yemen.
Al-Faisal harshly attacked Iran over its policy in the entire region and on the
nuclear issue. His comments were perceived as a real threat of a Saudi military
intervention in Yemen.
He spoke a day after learning that the foreign minister of Yemen's ousted
president, Abed-Rabbo Mansour Hadi, who fled the Houthis after they had taken
over the capital of Sana'a and is governing from the city of Aden, had asked the
Gulf Cooperation Council to intervene in the Yemeni crisis through a joint force
of the Arabian Peninsula states.
"We are prepared to accept all of President Hadi's requests for the sake of the
Yemini people and their stability," the kingdom's No. 1 diplomat clarified
during the press conference.
Hadi's foreign minister, Riad Yassin, told al-Jazeera that the Gulf states had
accepted Yemeni's request. He said that "arrangements are taking place," but
failed to mention what kind of procedures were being implemented and if and when
the forces begin would operating on the ground.
Kuwaiti Foreign Ministry Undersecretary Khalid Al-Jarallah, however, sounded
skeptical about a Gulf military intervention in Yemen.
The Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper reported Tuesday that the Saudi leadership was
working in the highest ranks and consulting other Gulf states on ways to
intervene in Yemen in order to help President Hadi maintain his constitutional
legitimacy, which is decreasing from day to day, as the Tehran-backed Shiite
rebels advance.
In the meantime, Saudi Arabia is settling for a moderate "muscle flexing": In
recent days, the Saudi defense minister, Prince Mohammad bin Salman (the king's
son), toured the Jizan region in the southern part of the kingdom, near the
border with Yemen, escorted by senior Saudi military officials.
Sources in the international community are trying to form a dialogue between the
Houthis and the ousted Yemeni president's supporters in a bid to prevent an Arab
military intervention, but so far it seems that the Shiites are not interested
in such a dialogue. Moreover, a senior Shiite rebel even threatened that if
Saudi Arabia were to intervene in Yemen militarily, it would be the end of the
Saudi royal family.
Saudi Arabia will likely weigh its options very carefully before deciding to
militarily intervene in Yemen. While Yemen is Saudi Arabia's backyard, and it
definitely doesn’t want to see its major Shiite rival – Iran – settling down
there, Riyadh hasn't forgotten the lesson Egypt learned in Yemen. In the 1960s,
in the Gamal Abdel Nasser era, Egypt intervened in the civil war in Yemen and
emerged beaten and injured. Confronting Iran's allies is also something which
should be considered very carefully before taking action.
In any event, the talks about a possible military intervention may breathe some
life into the Peninsula Shield Force – a joint military force created by Saudi
Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman in 1984 in a
bid to defend themselves against external enemies.
The force was last used in March 2011, when Sunni royal family of Bahrain tried
to oppress a revolt of the Shiite majority living in the country, a revolt which
was ignited by the opposition and encouraged and supported by Iran.
The Shield Force is a well-trained force which includes more than 30,000
officers and soldiers – 21,000 of whom are real fighters. In Bahrain they helped
the local forces secure strategic facilities during the 2011 riots. In 2003, the
Gulf states agreed to deploy the force in Kuwait for fear of an Iraqi response
to the invasion of Iraq.
After Iraqi president Saddam Hussein was toppled, there were talks about
dismantling the force, but it continued to exist and may now be called back into
action. The question is what will happen if the Gulf states take the serious
step of sending the Shield Force to Yemen, and especially how Tehran will
respond.
The ousted Yemeni president is expected to attend the Arab League summit, which
begins in Cairo this Saturday. Tehran, we can be sure, will be very attentive to
what is said there.

EU pressures Israel to make effort to
resume peace process in annual progress report
REUTERS /03/25/2015
BRUSSELS - The European Union urged Israelis and Palestinians on Wednesday to
quickly restart peace talks that collapsed last year, as the bloc's new foreign
policy chief seeks to reinvigorate European involvement in the negotiations.
Israel should make "every effort to ensure an early resumption of the Middle
East peace process," the EU said in a series of annual reports assessing
progress on democracy and human rights in countries close to the 28-nation bloc.
A separate report urged the Palestinian Authority to pursue "positive steps" to
restart peace talks.
EU foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini, who took on her position in
November, wants to more closely involve Arab states in the work of the Middle
East Quartet, which comprises the United States, United Nations, the EU and
Russia.
Rather than expanding the Quartet, it would hold more frequent top-level
meetings with at least Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, senior diplomats have
said.
Last week, the bloc chose veteran Italian negotiator Fernando Gentilini as its
special representative to the Middle East.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu caused deep alarm in Brussels and Washington
last week when, a day before winning a national election, he declared the
Palestinians would never have a state on his watch. He later tried to row back
on his comments.
In its reports, the EU called on Israel to ensure respect for international law
and human rights in the "occupied" territories.
U recognized Israel had the right to defend itself, the "devastating effect" of
last year's Gaza conflict on civilians "underlined the significant challenges
attached to Israel's responsibilities in the occupied territories," it said.
Hamas and other Gaza militant groups fought a 50-day war with Israel last July
and August in which more than 2,100 Palestinians, were killed. On the Israeli
side 67 soldiers and six civilians were killed.
The EU also urged the Palestinian Authority to resume full governmental
responsibility in Gaza and to organize free and fair presidential and
legislative elections.

Iran reportedly forming Syrian Druze
militia
Published: 25/03/2015/Now Lebanon
BEIRUT – Reports have emerged that Iran has been forming a Syrian Druze militia,
while rebels fighting Iranian and Hezbollah-led forces in southern Syria have
sought to calm tension with the residents of Druze-populated Suweida.
Al-Arabiya cited the opposition Syrian Media Council as revealing that “Iran has
formed a new military faction in [the Druze-populated] Jabal al-Arab, under the
name ‘Lebayk Ya Salman’ [For you o Salman], in a reference to the companion of
the prophet Mohammad, Salman al-Farsi, an important figure for the Druze.”
“Pictures have circulated on social media outlets of militants wearing insignia
with the words ‘for you o salman’ written on it,” the pan-Arab station added in
its Tuesday report.
“This has been interpreted as a new attempt by Iran to take advantage of Druze
sentiment and thrust the [sect] in to battles against rebel battalions.”
Prominent Druze journalist and political commentator Eyad Abu Shakra wrote
Sunday that the Iranians were attempting to form the Druze fighting group.
“After the Iranian conspiracy pushed the Shiites of Iraq and Lebanon as well as
the Alawites of Syria into sedition under the Ya Hussein slogan, now they are
trying to destroy the Druze under the Ya Salman slogan,” the journalist said
Sunday on Twitter.
Hezbollah training
Abu Shakra’s Ash-Sharq al-Awsat newspaper reported Monday that “Hezbollah and
Iran have a clear presence in Suweida” where they have come “to train these
Druze militias just as Shiite militias were formed previously under the
principle of resistance against extremists.”
“Hezbollah has been supporting and funding this formation as well as supervising
the training of dozens of the members of these militias,” the Saudi daily cited
opposition sources as saying.
The sources said that work on forming the group began in earnest last week when
clashes erupted in the Suweida governorate between the Al-Nusra Front and the
National Defense Forces, while ISIS was also present in Bir al-Qasab, to the
northeast of Suweida.
“In turn, pro-Hezbollah and regime [social] media pages have said this faction’s
mission is to liberate east Houran and the Daraa-Damascus highway,” Ash-Sharq
al-Awsat reported.
The alleged training comes amid the Hezbollah and Iranian-led regime offensive
in southern Syria aiming to seize a triangle of territory stretching from the
southern outskirts of Damascus down to Quneitra in the southwest and Daraa in
the southeast.
“The road to Damascus does not run through Suweida”
The coalition of rebels fighting in southern Syria reached out to residents of
Suweida in light of the insurgent campaign to seize Bosra al-Sham, a town 20
kilometers south of the Druze enclave.
“We will not go back on the promise we made to ourselves first before you: the
revolution’s path goes towards Damascus, but it does not pass through Suweida,”
the Southern Front’s military press room said in a Monday statement.
The rebel group, which has been fighting against the Iranian and Hezbollah-led
military campaign in southern Syria, further explained that recent fighting
outside Bosra al-Sham did not threaten regime-controlled Suweida.
“Rebel forces have not and will not seek to enter areas of Suweida [governorate]
but the supply lines from the villages of Beka and Dibin [to Bosra al-Sham] had
to be cut,” the group said about the clashes aiming to close the regime line
into Bosra, which fell to rebels on Wednesday.
Deadly fighting erupted over the weekend between rebels and pro-regime forces
near the Druze-populate towns of Dibin, Beka and Barad, which are located
southeast of the rebel target of Bosra al-Sham.
Alaraby Aljadeed reported Wednesday that at the beginning of their Bosra
campaign, rebels attacked “a regime checkpoint [...] at a three-way junction
leading to the three Druze-majority villages.”
The London-based daily added that regime forces and NDF militia members hailing
from the Suweida governorate were killed in the fighting.
“After the attack […] the regime began spreading rumors through its supporters
in the area, [claiming] that Daraa residents wanted to storm Suweida. It also
instructed them to inform on supporters of the revolution in the area and voices
calling for armament were raised.”
The Southern Front echoed the report, saying in its statement that “the clashes
that ensued were no more than a reaction to some people who tried to stir up
trouble.”
Daraa-Suweida reassurances
Amid the heightened tension in southern Syria, residents of the neighboring
Daraa and Suweida governorates issued statements pledging to avoid sectarianism.
Dozens of personalities from Daraa called for “the renunciation of sedition and
awareness of the attempts by the regime to thrust Suweida residents into a
confrontation with Daraa residents, after the fighting that has broken out
between [rebels] and regime forces supported by sectarian militias in the city
of Bosra al-Sham.”
“The people of Daraa wish to deliver a message to their neighbors, the residents
of Jabal al-Arab [the Druze], alerting them to the danger posed by the regime
using Suweida youth as fuel for Iran’s project.”
Suweida residents responded with their own statement in which they accused the
regime and its allies of “thrusting the sons of Suweida residents into a
confrontation with their brothers in Daraa—something which wise Suweida
[residents] and their free sons and daughters do not accept whatsoever.”
“While there may be some deluded residents in the governorate who the regime has
tricked into joining it in the NDF, outside the borders of Suweida, they most
certainly do not represent the orientation of the governorate’s residents.”
Meanwhile, Alaraby Aljadeed reported that a leading Suweida Druze elder sheikh
also warned against sectarian strife between the two governorates.
An activist from Suweida governorate, who chose not to reveal her name, told the
newspaper that Sheikh Waheed Balaous had called for caution.
“The Suweida residents who die in a battle against Daraa resident will die
unlamented. Likewise, Daraa residents who die in a battle against Suweida
residents will die unlamented.”
Balaous has been known for his neutral stance between the Bashar al-Assad regime
and Syrian rebels, however in recent weeks he has taken a more critical tone
against the Damascus government.